Referencing the motions, not the OP --
First motion, to move RA -- they cooled the rhetoric about POW conditions. And, while they claim he is not a risk to those around him, they dropped the part where he might be a risk to himself. This is no small risk. Are we to believe he's fully recovered from his deplorable mental decline described in prior defense memos?
Second motion, a request for more funds, to onboard a third attorney. What?!? I thought they were ready for trial. Suddenly they're not? Suddenly they haven't been able to get through all 26 tb of discovery? Because the Prosecution didn't organize it for them. What? They testified before SCION they were ready for trial, that switching attorneys would interfere with RA's right to a speedy trial. They agreed with the schedule -- the three-week trial just days from now, to which they're now saying they need more time. But they didn't need it when the schedule was set?
They. Aren't. Ready.
How do you ask for a continuance without asking for a continuance? You tell the judge you have a super secret SO MUCH testimony that you'll need way more trial time, even thought you're unwilling to specify who you intent to call and to what they'll testify. No good faith proffer.
Judge cents the extension blind and now the Defense admits it wasn't ready!!! They need a third attorney because they haven't even finished with the State's discovery!
We'll never know, but IMO if the judge had not granted the longer trial (and new fall date), the Defense should have been forced to ask for the continuance!!! This was a clever work around!!! The Judge gave them the extra time (and months of additional prep time!) with zero showing from them, and they turn around and submit this motion for relief! They need another attorney to prepare for trial!! I can't state this big enough!! IMO with the last hearing, they TRICKED the Judge in order to get a continuance without having to ask for one! This crew that's been representing how ready they are!!!
Yeesh.
JMO
I agree that there is a Defense strategy afoot. But, IMO, it's not necessarily about readiness. To understand it, a broader view is necessary. There are many other risks/benefits for the D to consider. And, it's no small point that speedy trial is the decision of the D - and no other party.
Speedy trial is the D's constitutional prerogative (and not the Court's). There's zero need for trickery by the Defense. They only need to release the speedy trial demand; the Court will adjust. No Court agreement required. The Prosecution has no say.
IMO the D has previously expressed its interest in presenting its extended (SODDI) theory of defense. The Court stated it would not allow time for an extended defense on the "unmovable" speedy trial schedule; the D's only choice, should they wish to present that type of defense, is to give up the speedy trial.
Other possible considerations/risks/benefits:
- A skilled Defense makes no move without considering appellate strategy.
- This D believes their client will not be fairly served if this Judge does not recuse and there is another recusal motion on deck.
- The Court has suggested in language and in action that the Court is not inclined to admit evidence related to the D's theory of case.
- A longer timeline permits the Defense's Appellate teams to address what the D sees as ongoing unfair conditions for their client.
- The P continues to forward late (exculpatory) discovery to the D (most recently we learned of exculpatory discovery handed to the D as late as April 26th).
- The particular type of late-arriving discovery requires expert consult; experts require time.
- One major downside to speedy trial is RA's holding time and solitary prison conditions.
The D must weigh speedy trial
vs fair trial. What are relative risks/consequences of speedy trial vs normal trial timeline? e.g.: From the D's view - due to time limits the Court (artificially?) imposed, one of the D's risk of keeping the speedy trial was not being able to presenting the case they planned. And yesterday we saw the D moving quickly to mitigate the major risk of conceding speedy trial - RA's safekeeping conditions.
As for Auger, the D's decision to bring Auger on full time for trial was made before last week's hearing. As described, the late arriving exculpatory discovery is largely FBI-related, technical and in Auger's wheelhouse.
In my view, there's complex risk/benefit decisions going on here; hopefully we'll better understand these more strategic choices as the case moves forward.
JMHO
